CECIL HURT: College football playoff should be about results, not 'look test'

Wednesday

Oct 9, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Over the past several days, like the shooting stars from the Draconid meteor shower, members of the new College Football Playoff selection committee have sporadically flashed into public view.

By Cecil HurtSports Editor | The Tuscaloosa News

Over the past several days, like the shooting stars from the Draconid meteor shower, members of the new College Football Playoff selection committee have sporadically flashed into public view. First were the names of current athletic directors, one from each of the power conferences. Then came the former players, the former writer, the former diplomat. Fascinating, yes. But is this progress?The question is sincere. For years, people have railed against the BCS system, which had a constantly evolving formula for picking two teams to play for the championship of college football. Critics raged against that system on television and radio. Editorials were written, and books denouncing the BCS became best-sellers. In 2011, the selection of Alabama and LSU, two Southeastern Conference teams, to the BCS title game threatened to send parts of the country into open revolt. (Oklahoma wouldn't have been missed, but open revolt isn't a good look.) People wanted change, and now change has come. But, beyond a nearly universal agreement that four teams is better than two, there is no guarantee that the new process is any better — or even as good — as the old.First things first: The single most misunderstood aspect of the new committee is that the members need to be “football men” who can “break down film” or analyze which team “passes the look test.” That ability isn't needed at all. Being “men” is not important. The minute the committee gets away from the only thing it needs to consider — results on the field — and wanders into the poppy fields of the “look test,” the whole purpose is defeated. The only thing the committee should consider is raw data — how diverse schedules compare, and who did the best against them. A group comprised of administrators, statisticians and engineers — of either gender — could do the job just as well as former quarterbacks and offensive line coaches. Frankly, I have thought all along that the “star power” nominees — Archie Manning, Condoleezza Rice (again, not because she is female) and so on — were so much window dressing, and that a more serviceable committee could be drawn from the ranks of anonymous engineers and the nation's best collegiate math departments. That is a better safeguard against bias than the arbitrary “predictions” of “experts,” no matter how steeped in football background they are. Wait. Wouldn't that hurt the Southeastern Conference? Doesn't evaluating the SEC, the nation's best league, require some sort of sixth sense about how good the conference “really” is? Not at all. Look at it this way: Last year, would a four-team playoff chosen by the existing BCS model have included Florida and Oregon, along with Alabama and Notre Dame? There is no way to know for sure, but do I think a committee would have included Florida over Stanford or Kansas State? No. The fact that Stanford and KSU were conference champions while the Gators and Ducks didn't make their conference championship games should not matter, unless the BCS decides to give preference to conference champions in some mathematically qualifiable way. Then, why? Because the Gators would not have done well on the look test.I have nothing against any potential committee members. They can do the job, just as a lot of other “experts” and average citizens could. But it is important that people not lose sight of what that job is — choosing the team that did the most, not the one that “looks the best.”